no and there are many college graduates that don't deserve the salaries they get. just like there are many college drop outs who have the smarts and the potential but cannot get financial backing for their ideas. You've just given their "funding" to the 50 year old for no apparent reason but blind luck.

the reality is that the 50 year old probably didn't retrain or retool themselves for the evolving market. and shouldn't get paid more than the market should bear for the job the enjoin.

As a caucasian male living in America, I would find it difficult to become a 21 year old Indian man who can easily live on $17k a year. In order for my first hypothetical worker to adapt, he'd need to move to a third world country or take a pay cut of 2/3 or more.

equality vs. liberty

That is the constant struggle between these two ideologies. As a few have pointed out here, happiness lies in the balance between the two.

Too much of either is a recipe for disaster.

If you are still a 'bagger' at age 50, perhaps the problem isn't the company you are working for.

If half a century of knowledge and experience gives you only the skills to put things in a bag, you had better be mentally retarded.

Personally I'm a big fan of self check out ;)

I know several men who have been laid off in favor of cheap Indian work and who've started their own handyman service while they look for other work. They are qualified to do a great deal and are more than capable, but that hardly means they'll get work. Do you know how much they make currently? I'd guess around $30k a year each. Do you know how much they made previously? I'd guess over $80k a year. It has nothing to do with skill. It has to do with the price of the work to the company. As a capitalist, who would you want doing work for you: an American who you'd need to pay $50k a year or an Indian who you'd need to pay $20k a year? The answer is simple.

Will the point being made isn't about outsourcing but rather that if you are a skilled person and you settle for a job bagging groceries that's not a good thing. I know that if I was to lose my job I could always get a job selling clothing at the Gap or being a bike courier (both jobs I have held in the past). I would be making a lot less than I am now but I would be making money.

The thing is, it would be a stop gap. I would be working hard to get another job (and not necessarily the one I used to have). Socialism isn't going to solve outsourcing.

Well of course it's a stop gap, hopefully, but with whole personnel markets drying up it's not always easy to get back on your feet.

Also, socialism is about preventing business from acting unethically. Profit is not the only motivation a business can have.

will the person making 80k a year for a company also is probably working for a company that would have given a decenct severance package to that individual. At least a few months at the minimum, and again, if you settle on bagging groceries, it's my fault that they didn't strive for more?

that's a bunch of bullshit right there.

if you are going to pay that individual more because he made more to begin with then shit I'll quit my job now and go be a bagger. Why strive for higher if the bar will just lower with me?

Not necessarily. Sure, hypothetically there could be severance that could last a bit, but if the market is no longer available for people of his skill he has to go back to school. That could take years. In those years he has to make money. OBVIOUSLY, no one is "settling" with bagging. He would be trying to make his way back into a better paying job market.
How about you calm down and show me some respect?
We're allowing that person to stay alive and have the necessities: food, water, shelter, health. I don't know where everyone gets the idea that everyone will be given a very comfortable lifestyle without working. It's not like we're buying the bag boy a Porsche. That's not socialism.

there's no disrespect in stating that two different ages getting two different salaries because someone is older and "deserves" it is a bunch of bullshit.

As a youth I had jobs where I ran circles around older people who had families and mortages to support yet I got very much less than they did. That is age discrimination right there.

Well then what salary does this person get form the 80k? Because as you've explained it, the capitalist system is shown as broken and then you say they deserve to be paid more. So what is this more? 60k? and what is the disparity for the younger person in the same job?

I suspect many members have similar stories, I certainly do.
The idea would be that the person who is capable, rained, and with experience won't lose his job to an Indian kid. It has a lot more to do with the market being monitored so as to protect workers from bosses who would drop even good, productive workers to save a buck. Socialism means that these things can be monitored and even prevented more. It's about sharing economic responsibility between the government and the companies. In a free market, no one can prevent outsourcing, really.

I'm not sure where younger people entered the equation, but if an employee can prove him or herself, the company should be loyal to them, regardless of age.

In some cases what you describe already happens vis a vie the Union models. That form of labor is quite expensive and costs alot to the union member as well. But they are protected from many things that non-union members are not like layoffs, summary dismissals, etc. But there, people pay into a system, they have tiers for tenure.

Now in that system, I don't see them working their asses off, they walk slower, they react slower, they move with little desire. All because they know they are protected and that there is due process to remove them and/or their position.

For me to get a worker reduction in my building I have to petition the Union in order to do so, it can take years to do it and at considerable cost. Unfair I say in the capitalist model that is elsewhere. We have need for a workforce reduction and you just do it.

Productivity is high in Europe, which is far more socialist than the US. And look at their currency. Jeez. Instead of scaring the people into working (see Office Space: that makes you work just hard enough not to get fired), you give them positive reinforcement. As a psych person, I know that positive reinforcement is usually better than negative reinforcement in the work environment.

France doesn't have high productivity. They are screaming for more workers to work longer hours to become more productive to compete and are being blocked by the unions.

The industrial base is very strong (telecom, defense, electronics, engineering, chemicals, aerospace, and cars), clean and powerful nuclear power which helps with foreign oil issues, agriculture, tourism, and trade are all strong right now. Unemployment is high, and the federal budget is in a bit of trouble (nothing compared to the US, though), though.

Eh, France may be having a rough time at the moment, but Iceland's exploding... and we're all unionized up here, as well. And we still get 5 weeks' vacation annually! :)

So Cyn, I'm still rather curious. I know you like Iceland. But do you disapprove of the way things are done here? Did you perceive that Icelanders were unhappy with the system?

Unions are a diffferent problem all together.

There are strict regulations as to being able to fire someone "at will", since most everyone is contracted.

One of the things that I don't know about Iceland, is are the food service workers also "union"? (this includes the new Subway franchises from the past several years, and the rest of the lower waged tiers such as cashiers at the mall.) I think that that cashiers like Hagkaup and Bonus are unionized, but the owner of the little general store/video rental place in the small town of <1000 I don't think is. From this I gather that the Unionized people are well protected and get protected salaries. Those that are let go "at will" are purchased out of their contracts or the contract has terms for dismissal and severance typically 6 months salary even if tenure is <1 year. This creates some interesting hardships for the employer and can sometimes favor outside the unionized labor pool for a couple of reasons. First because "outside" must be better an interesting fallacy since there is such a good joke about Icelanders being xenophobic. Secondly, employers have the burden of paying an employee that isn't providing labor, so my friend worked without contract for several months probationary, so this "union" protection doesn't happen. Here in the US the union hall knows of the jobs and assists in the tooling and training, I don't think that happens in Iceland that I know of.

Offesetting this I union system believe (again from anecdotal observation and discussions) is the socialized governement programs from the Icelandic government. If you never get gainfully employed or work a unionized job, you still enjoy some protections from the social systems in place. I know this works for the original Icelanders and I believe is fair to them. I don't know how this affects the influx of people emmigrating to Iceland as temporary workers since no government wants the burden of more people using services than needed.

But a couple of things to note, Iceland only has c. 300,000 Icelanders. Each of those people have fish stocks as part of their natural birthright. The country and people utilizes those stocks since there is a value to the community. So while they may not be doing any physical labor, just by birth they are allocated X amount of fish. I'm not sure where this original allocation comes from, what treaty, conservation, etc. Taking care of 300,000 people doesn't have the same ramifications of taking care of millions.

In some ways I know that if I lived there I would always be jealous of natural born Icelanders since they always have a safety net that catches them. As an outsider, I don't believe I am afforded those same protections, unless I'm married to an Icelander.

Just addressing this part for the moment... well, even Icelandic citizens lose rights to the health care system if they have changed their residence to another country, and then moved back home. They have to reside back in Iceland for 6 months before those benes kick in, just like foreign residents and workers. When ktspktsp and I moved here, we both had to purchase short-term insurance to cover our asses in case one of us got hit by a truck or something (the deductible is pretty high) in our first 6 months here... I'm a citizen, he isn't. As of Sept 1, we'll finally be able to go to the doctor, yay!

Now, if you moved here legally (obviously without being married to an Icelander), that would mean you would have a work permit issued from an employer (like an H1-B in the US). This also goes along with a residence permit to allow you to live in the country legally, which means you would have access to the health care system after 6 months here, as well. And, if you so desired, after 7 years living in Iceland you could become a citizen. And then there would be absolutely no difference between you and "natural born Icelanders." Citizenship confers rights of nativity. That's the whole idea. Hell, I was not born here, only got my citizenship in my 20s... but I have all the same rights as those who were born here. Ktspktsp is allowed to get his citizenship here after 3 years, due to being married to me... and he would also obtain all the same rights as a native. There would be nothing to be jealous of. :)

Agreed that is the purpose of naturalization. You are born of Icelandic heritage directly, unlike West Icelanders those that emigrated out to Canada and have been there for many generations. While their roots are Icelandic, they don't contribute to the Icelandic taxation and social systems. It makes sense of course to not care for those that don't contribute for a period of time.

Again, though these "costs" are off set in some manner by the fish stocks that each "original" Icelander "owns".

The Icelandic news I get here of course is extremely filtered and the only direct conversations I have are of course limited to my small pool of friends. I do know that even the Unions don't have enough resources to benefit all their workers. It has been suggested to me several times to purchase a summer house and rent it out to the Union who in turn gives it out to their members.

I must admit that I have not heard about these common fish stocks. I know there are set quotas for each fishery/boat/region in Iceland, and these can be traded around the island and sold off to corporations if wanted... and they diminish each year, as the cod stocks diminish and the environmental ministry tries to protect them from depletion. But I am not sure how that is related to health care and benefits?

As far as I know, the "costs" of providing benefits to residents and citizens comes straight from our own pockets... that 40% income tax and 25% sales tax, among many other costs ($7.50/gallon for gas, yippee!). At least, I HOPE that money is going into the health care/education system, otherwise I'm going to be very upset! :)

As you stated they can be traded and sold off to corporations, so there is a dollar figure associated to it. Each individual has a claim to a certain amount of fish. It is these that are bartered and traded. I'm sorry if I'm confusing the ideas of "claim" and "stock" since the "stock" is the actual inventory of fish that is depleted and not replenished. Each Icelander has a birth right claim to an amount of fish. Since this commodity can be bought and sold, is regenerating each year, it gives a "bigger" value to the individual on top of the normal taxation revenues such as sales and income.

Again, this information is anecdotal from my outside conversations and "studies" I have yet to corroborate this information with treaties and laws.

So each individual has a contribution to the social system even if they are disabled, elderly, young and not working.

another note for the Icelander observations:

Icelanders aren't filling in the jobs that are required for their base industries. Fish factories are increasingly relying on outside labor (something you are studying as well ;) ). Aluminum smelting factories are faced with the same issues.

From one of the studies I read, Icelandic teens interviewed stated they were not interested in working in either sector, that alone is problematic and will require outside the labor pool.

As opposed to say... hmm... US-style cappy-happy-talisme where you work your ass off before, during, and after college so the Bush twins can drink their way through it?

What gets lost in debates like this is the nature of capitalism. Even capitalism has to allocate a certain amount of overhead for infrastructure and systems of social reproduction. Without these, it would melt into air. So, much as i hate to break it to you, you are already paying for the education of others.

Attacking from another angle, you could also call "working your ass off after high school to pay for -- egads! -- SOMEONE ELSE to go to college" "being a middle class parent."

This is a tricky subject. There is more to life than just working and making money. And there is a lot of luck in capitalism, along with the possibility of working hard to move up. Socialism takes out some of the risk, but limits how many people can reach a life of wasteful exuberance. Socialism is more adaptable as a long term solution, where in capitalism, you will see the top 5% succeed, but the bottom 95% fade away as they can't afford to keep up.

From age 0-25, socialism makes a lot more sense. You shouldn't be defined by who your parents are, but what you do with your life. I grew up in an area that was very similar in income, but went to school with the richest of kids and very poor immigrants.

From age 25-50, capitalism can let you keep more of your money. You can choose what you want to do in life and buy whatever you want. You might even save some money. In socialism, you have a more stable life where you don't have to worry about the stuff the government provides. You don't have to work the crazy long hours and give up family life and personal time to work for some corporation.

From age 50-death, the 401k in modern day capitalism is a hope that some people will be able to take out money from the stock and bond market to pay for their retirement. I would be worried that the market will crash if a large group of people keep taking out their money year after year, instead of putting it in year after year (and not taking it out) like they are right now. Social security is a lot like socialism, where the workers and companies are paying for the retirees based loosely on what they earned. Socialism has to government taking care of the retirees and is less risky, but also doesn't allow for them to gamble with having a big payday from betting your individual 401k will go up a lot.

So, I view capitalism as more you are on your own, but you might choose wrong, or may never be in the position to suceed in the first place. While some others will be economic winners just because their parents have money. Socialism protects you from some greedy people, but will tax you and make your life a little easier. Yet it takes away some incentive to create new stuff.

100 years from now is when things get interesting. There will be a large push to eliminate workers and replace them by machines. I have written some programs at work that would have caused more work for me or made it necessary to have another employee. But what happens when 25% of the current jobs get replaced by a computer, robot or terminal?